Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Dial-up bitrate listening test - Finished! (Read 29402 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dial-up bitrate listening test - Finished!

Reply #50 –
Same for me. The SBR tool offers a strange texture (graininess) and is maybe responsible of the extra-noise which irritated me very much; Parametric Stereo is also the cause of an incoherent stereo image in my opinion. Therefore, AAC was not far from the last place on the ~10 samples I've rated.

I must add that I have a lot of troubles to rate poor files with so obvious and so different artifacts. That's why I never sent results to Ivan for the two small listening tests he launched some months ago. I'm sure that my results are extremely dependant on my mood: sometimes I would prefer extreme lowpass to any artifacts, and sometimes high frequencies -even bad- would be prefered to lowpassed sound. During Roberto's test, I prefered lowpassed but ~natural sound to the colorized WMA/SBR sound.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Dial-up bitrate listening test - Finished!

Reply #51 –
Good comments, I found myself at a loss at times too...."which artifacts are more irritating? The decrease in frequency range or the greater frequency range + added noise + altered stereo image?"  WMA sometimes offered a happy medium in my case (or maybe my attention waned ).

Dial-up bitrate listening test - Finished!

Reply #52 –
At last!

Here is the plot for music samples only:



As you can see, QDesign performs considerably better, getting slightly tied to MP3pro.

And the final plot with Anova analysis:



The winners and losers remain the same, but the error margins are now smaller.

I won't add the latter graph to the page, to avoid confusion.

Regards;

Roberto.